Score:1

Understanding Garbled Circuit Design in Gazelle Protocol

jp flag

I have been examining the Gazelle paper, which focuses on secure inference protocols. One section constructs a Garbled Circuit using inputs cx, sx, and sy to compute the ReLU function in neural networks. Here, sx represents the server's share of the input and cx stands for the client's share of the input data. The paper defines sx as x - r (where r is a random sequence used for masking x) and cx as r.

My understanding is that all operations within this circuit are carried out in modulo p. In the first block of the circuit, the shares are added to compute x - r + r = x. The second block appears to be performing the ReLU operation, comparing x with 0 and outputting the higher value.

However, I am struggling to comprehend the exact design details. I have the following questions:

  1. What is the purpose of the Trapeziums in the circuit? Are they like ports?
  2. In the second block, why is the modulus specified as p/2?
  3. Shouldn't the first input to the Trapezium in the second block be 0 instead of p/2?
  4. I find it difficult to interpret the numerous branches in the first and second blocks. For instance, in the first block following the subtraction circuit, why does the line split into two separate branches before entering the Trapezium? Aren't these two branches carrying identical values? To clarify, I'll refer to these branches as A and B. What about A' and B'?

I would greatly appreciate any insights into these design details.

enter image description here

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.